tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115448954168956817..comments2016-11-30T20:44:36.586-07:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: If Atheists Ruled the WorldAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155039457113319542006-08-08T06:17:00.000-06:002006-08-08T06:17:00.000-06:00I can't find any trackback links, so I'm doing it ...I can't find any trackback links, so I'm doing it manually. My thoughts on this post are <A HREF="http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-if-atheists-ruled-world.html" REL="nofollow">Here </A>.vjackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1154651175645565462006-08-03T18:26:00.000-06:002006-08-03T18:26:00.000-06:00I feel comfortable in asserting that this also wor...<I>I feel comfortable in asserting that this also works as a definition of ‘Conservative.’</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't. It's been my experience that even conservatives typically define political conservatism, in part, by the idea that people are <B>not</B> naturally good. However many positive ideals people may have, they still tend to behave badly and therefore must have a government which is either strong enough to prevent bad behavior or is structured so as to redirect bad behavior towards good ends. This is why conservatives think highly of the separate branches of the government (by giving people a personal stake in preventing too much power from accruing in any one branch) and capitalism (private greed leads to the overall good of the economy).<BR/><BR/>Don't be me wrong, I don't disagree that it's a mistake to say that one is either liberal or fascist. I also don't intend the above as a criticism. On the contrary, I think it has a lot going for it. I'm just saying that your mistaken in saying that the quoted definition of liberalism works equally well for conservatism. I'm just taking the first point to show how that isn't so — I think that at least minor differences exist with the rest as well.Austin Clinehttp://atheism.about.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1154544954569172472006-08-02T12:55:00.000-06:002006-08-02T12:55:00.000-06:00Even though you and I disagree on these matters, w...<I>Even though you and I disagree on these matters, we can best approach this issue with an intelligent discussion of the issue themselves, rather than rallying the people with a campaign of patriotism and hate-mongering.</I><BR/>I agree, but this principle itself is under serious attack in the present-day US. It's difficult to even attempt an intelligent discussion with people who are more interested in bombing Lebanon, making death threats or telling you to "go fuck yourself". (Obviously those actions are not morally equivalent, but all interfere with an attempt at honest discussion of the issues.)<BR/><BR/>The main problem here is that the word "liberal" is not well defined. No two people can agree on what a liberal person, or a liberal position, is. There are a few cases where there is broad consensus (e.g. Dick Cheney is definitely not a liberal), but a lot more where some people will consider a person liberal and others will not (e.g. Bill Clinton).<BR/><BR/>Therefore arguments about liberals or liberal philosophy tend to have a lot of equivocation, non sequiturs and semantic disconnects.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, I consider free market principles liberal; Tremblay and you seem to disagree. Basically I take the position that the modern use of "liberal" is so vague as to be totally useless and therefore if it is going to be used to mean anything, it should be the 18th-century "classical liberalism": focused on individual rights and a pragmatic distrust of bureaucracy and rent-seekers (which includes protectionism and price controls).Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1154532319020929242006-08-02T09:25:00.000-06:002006-08-02T09:25:00.000-06:00Safe to assume that people use the language of exc...Safe to assume that people use the language of exclusion more often in election years. Don't feel too bad for the GifS guys, though. Those of us in Bill Hicks' "People Who Hate People" Party are still having a hard time gathering in any significant numbers.<BR/><BR/>ps. Les I like your site and it's how I found this one, so thank you.Jason Powersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1154527270540840652006-08-02T08:01:00.000-06:002006-08-02T08:01:00.000-06:00I'm glad you wrote about this as I've been thinkin...I'm glad you wrote about this as I've been thinking about it myself over the past couple of days. I was bothered by the initial post on GifS and then further bothered by <A HREF="http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/07/politics-is-for-suckers.html" REL="nofollow">this entry on Goosing the Antithesis</A> by Francois Tremblay which ripped on the GifS post. <BR/><BR/>Francis apparently considers "atheist liberals" to be hypocrites that make as much sense as being a "gay Christian." He offers the following as a rebuttal: <BR/><BR/><B><I>In the name of all atheist libertarians and anarchists, who actually care about the freedom of everyone to live the way they want and the freedom from political power, permit me to politely say "go fuck yourselves".</I></B><BR/><BR/>Now, in addition to being an atheist, I also consider myself to be a liberal with a strong libertarian bent so I'm left to wonder where I fall between these two opposing viewpoints. Neither camp would seem to consider me a member based on the commentary they've made so far. <BR/><BR/>I suppose it's a good thing I don't mind being a lone-wolf type.Leshttp://stupidevilbastard.com/noreply@blogger.com